Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This idea of establishing some kind of order has more appeal to me now than
it used to have. After 11 years of this hobby and involvement with this
site, I find myself more interested in returning to some of the same games
over and over instead of exploring novelty as much as I used to. When it
was all new to me, I wanted to sample, as well as create, a wide variety of
games. With more experience behind me of playing and creating a variety of
CVs, I am more interested in isolating some of the better ones and in
encouraging play of them.

This Next Chess idea is a good one. While the chances of replacing Chess
might be low, it does seem worthwhile to find other games that could stand
their ground with Chess if the playing field were more even. Imagine that
Chess and other CVs were newly invented, so that Chess didn't have the
hegemony it currently enjoys over CVs, allowing Chess and other CVs to
compete for the public's attention without Chess having any prior external
advantages over other CVs. With this in mind, we may consider which CVs
would have the best chances of gaining widespread popularity of the sort
Chess currently enjoys.

What I propose is a tournament featuring some of these CVs. To pick the
games for the tournament, I propose that the CV inventors active on this
site each pick one of his games that would stand the best chances of
gaining (under ideal circumstances) the kind of popularity Chess has. This
shouldn't be about picking his personal favorite, especially if it is one
that would mainly appeal to hardcore CV enthusiasts. Among my own games,
Eurasian Chess is the one I think best fits this criteria, though Kamikaze
Mortal Shogi is probably my personal favorite. People may also suggest
games they didn't invent, and we may try to form a consensus over what
games to pick, or just have a vote. Among games I didn't invent, I think
either Victorian Chess or Schoolbook Chess would be a good choice. I would
limit it to one or the other to avoid including games too similar to each
other.

Knightmate and a Capablanca sub-variant. (Doesn't matter very much which
one, although I disliked Schoolbook for its awkward positioning of the
Queen, while those with all super-pieces in the center make it very hard to
defend the King from Bishop checks. So perhaps Capablanca or Carrera are
the best.)

I like the idea of a NextChess tournament. I'd offer Christian Freeling's
Grand Chess and my own Great Shatranj as 2 potential games. Both,
superficially, are Capa variants, but both offer something the real Capa
variants don't. 

The times I've played Grand Chess, I've been struck by the different feel
of the game, compared to Capa. It's a far more open and free-wheeling
game, with pawns that are more vulnerable than those on an 8x10, at least
in my opinion. I think it should be considered as a legitimate option for a
second Capa-type game for a NextChess tourney, after and in addition to a
more traditional 8x10.

Great Shatranj is the best 'rival' to chess I've done. It's shatranj
with really good pieces. Those who have tried it generally seem to find it
a very playable, enjoyable, chesslike game. I admit to enjoying the game
myself; it has an unusual character. While it appears to be a Capa variant,
in play it is something quite different, demanding more measured [and
supported] attacks which proceed across the board in steps. The game
requires good tactical and strategic considerations because, with
shortrange pieces, it is just possible to win on one side of the board and
lose on the other. 

I believe there is a strong random [aka: luck] element in our designs, and
I was very lucky with the design of this game. It may start a bit slowly
for modern tastes, but if this game were offered to shatranj players of a
millennium or so ago, I think it would attract players. Games of its nature
historically did. This should meet the standards set, if only minimally,
for games that could hold their own against standard Western chess, if both
started off on an equal footing.

Joe,

Do you favor Great Shatranj with Dababbas or Rooks? What are your preferences among the Capa variants, by which I just mean games played with the same board and pieces as Capablanca Chess?

Hi, Fergus. In Great Shatranj, I very strongly favor not using the rook, as
using rooks changes the entire flow and play of the game. The rook is a
very powerful piece in this game, as the only long range piece. And while
the rook may not be the most powerful piece, the DW ['dababba'] is
certainly the weakest, although it maintains the crucial quality of mating
with the king.

As for the standard Capa variants, I don't have a preference.

I second the motion to include Great Shatranj. I also prefer the WD ('Woody
Rook') over the Rook.

In fact this is one of the variants that is supported on the Chess Variants
Server. (Together with classic Shatranj, Courier, Knightmate, Several
Capablanca setups, Superchess, Crazyhouse, Bughouse, Xiangqi and Shogi.)

I'd be up for a tournament, but I don't have many variants and none will
be good enough for NextChess, nor do I know many or what kind of criterian
to look for in this.  Fergus seems to know what he's doing and I really
like his Clockwork Orange Chess, so can I submit that or is it not what you
guys are looking for?  Maybe you guys can just choose one for me :)

I'm just up for a tournament.  Speaking of which, are there any plans for
CV tournament #4?

In regards to the question about 'NextChess' (if this is the name we are
agreeing to, or 'Next Chess', that is fine, and doesn't look taken), may
I suggest there be a focus on HOW it will come about, addressing the issues
we would like to see dealt with, and not just WHAT?  Like, what do we all
want 'NextChess' to be like?  What do we want in it to have?  What do we
find appealing about variants, and what can we distill from them?  And can
we have a game that isn't static, but one that can evolve so it remains
fresh?

You can look at what I have written before, and what I have proposed as
variants, so you can get some idea what I am interested in, from mutators,
to a range of formations, to a classification system for handling a range
of variant types, in terms of complexity and stability.

Nicholas,

You don't have to be a game inventor or suggest someone else's variant to
play in the tournament. It's just that picking games for the tournament is
the first step toward starting it, and that's where I am right now. I
would like the tournament to consist mainly of inventor-selected games, one
per inventor, that best fit the Next Chess criteria. If there isn't
interest in this from enough inventors, we can also include some by
non-participating inventors, still keeping it at one game per inventor. So
far, the interested inventors are myself with Eurasian Chess and Joe Joyce
with Grand Shatranj. This precludes Clockwork Orange Chess from this
tournament, though I would be happy to have it played in some other
tournament at a later time.

Rich,

The question of Next Chess is not about what we would want. It is about
what the public at large could appreciate if it were not already so
enamored with Chess, and, perhaps could, sometime in the far off future,
come to appreciate as much as Chess. With this in mind, we have to think
foremost of what the public at large likes about Chess and which other
games have the same kind of appeal. This is a different issue than picking
our own favorites or creating a single variant that would have the
strongest appeal to the variant community. For example, I did not select
Eurasian Chess because it is my favorite among my variants. I chose it for
being a game that has much the same appeal as Chess without simply being
some kind of twist on Chess, as many variants are. People who are really
into variants might appreciate a game that is more open-ended than Chess,
such as one that lets you use pick different pieces to use. But Chess has
survived a long time without being open-ended like this, and if another
variant were to replace Chess in time, I don't think it would have to be
any more open-ended than Chess is.

Fergus,

Sounds good.  Speaking of other tournaments, has there been any talk of CV
Tournament #4?  I was talking to Joe Joyce the other day and commenting on
how I was not a part of CV during those days and would like to see it.  On
the other hand, there is a tournament going on right now that has Clockwork
Orange Chess as the variant for a certain round.  My suggestion :)  Maybe
when we start it, you can overlook some of the games and see how your
variant is playing out.

Are there any stipulations on these NextChess ideas?  For instance, if I
were to try to invent a variant for this, would it qualify if I thought it
included the qualities that the masses would like?  Or would it have to be
more profound of a variant that has been tried and tested, such as your
Eurasian Chess and Great Shatranj?  I am debating on trying to come up with
one, but if it won't be used, then I may bypass the effort for now. 
Thanks!

Rich,

Let me take your idea of distilling what I like about variants into one
variant and see how far it will go. What I like about variants is playing a
variety of different games that each has its own character, due to having
its own rules, pieces, and/or board. How can this be distilled into one
game? It can't be. It is impossible. We may combine elements of different
games together, but the resulting game will have its own character, and it
will not preserve the character of the other games. For example, Eurasian
Chess combines elements of Chess and Xiangqi, but it does not have the same
character as either of these games. To give a more extreme example,
Knightmare Chess borrows elements from a wide variety of variants, and it
is a very enjoyable game, but it also has a very different character than
other variants. The idea of distilling what I like about variants into one
game is dead in the water. It is no more viable than distilling what I like
about different foods into one food or what I like about different TV shows
into one TV show. Just to pick two of the TV shows I watch, is there any
viable way to distill what I like about Family Guy and Smallville into a
single TV show? There isn't. The character of each show is so different
from the character of the other that any mixture of them would lose
something. My point here is that any attempt to distill what we like about
variants into a single game is going to inevitably lose something of what
we like about variants. What I like about variants is too much for one game
to contain, and instead of trying to fit it all into one game, I just
appreciate having a variety of different games.

Fergus, I do appreciate what you are saying as each game being a standalone
game with its own flavor, and arguably each one being a 'work of art' in
its own right.  My concern about this is that it makes each game a deadend
that can't be picked up and tweaked the way Chess has to spawn variants. 
The community doesn't end up owning the game and collectively tweaking it
to its wishes.  It is a take it or leave it, which ends up resulting in a
bunch of games that have their own followings, but not enough to reach a
critical mass to support mass adoption.  There is also egos at stake where
one designer or another jockeys for position to have their game as 'the
next chess'.  I have dealt with such individuals on the commercial level,
who have staked their financial lives on it, and it isn't pretty.  I could
name multiple of them, and then ask if any of their games have a following
here.  I don't see it.  I believe in an earlier NextChess discussion, we
saw limitations on a select game being picked.

So, let me amend what I said by saying we should have room for preferred
configurations, and also games as stand alone, but I also believe we should
have some form (or several forms) that allow the community to give feedback
and we evolve a design we can get enough people to play that has a critical
mass behind it that it could get adopted and we get some neat byproducts of
this, like commercial equipment being made to be able to play (you finally
get variant pieces... YIPPIE).

In a nutshell, can we have both what you want (each game as a work of art
unto itself) and also something we can evolve as a community, that can
borrow from all over?  Maybe have a third way also of an Athlon format
where, over a given year, a set number of the established games are the
pool that is played, and we push for a championship over that format. 

Let's do everything I say, rather than either or.

I do appreciate what you are saying as each game being a standalone game with its own flavor, and arguably each one being a 'work of art' in its own right.

I spoke of individual games having their own character. I did not say anything about them being works of art, despite your quotation marks around the phrase 'work of art.' Whether or not a game is a work of art has no bearing on the point I was making. Some may just be experiments or products of evolution. My point was that what I like about variants is too wide and far-ranging to be distilled into a single variant.

My concern about this is that it makes each game a deadend that can't be picked up and tweaked the way Chess has to spawn variants.

Some variants have been tweaked. Capablanca's Chess has been succeeded by variants correcting its flaws. Grand Chess has been followed by Grander Chess. Some variants have influenced the design of newer variants. Grand Chess influenced Eurasian Chess, which in turn has influenced Wildeurasian Qi. Some of my own games have come about by tweaking some of my older games. Grand Cavalier Chess was an improvement on Cavalier Chess. Eurasian Chess was a modification of Yang Qi. It wouldn't be difficult to enumerate more examples. Nothing is impeding the flow of ideas. The individuality of games is not standing in the way of creativity.

The community doesn't end up owning the game and collectively tweaking it to its wishes.

I'm not a communist. So I don't understand how this is a bad thing. Besides, it's not like anyone is stopping the community from exercising its collective wishes. Maybe it has more to do with the community not actually having clear, focused collective wishes regarding chess variants.

It is a take it or leave it, which ends up resulting in a bunch of games that have their own followings, but not enough to reach a critical mass to support mass adoption.

This has more to do with the secure position of Chess, not with games having individual creators.

There is also egos at stake where one designer or another jockeys for position to have their game as 'the next chess'. I have dealt with such individuals on the commercial level, who have staked their financial lives on it, and it isn't pretty. I could name multiple of them, and then ask if any of their games have a following here.

Not all inventors are of one mold. Some have focused on marketing one game. Others have created one game after another, not with the intention of finding the next Chess, but just for the sake of creativity or experimentation, or from inspiration from the muse. Many of us are just not trying to replace Chess, and the failure to do something we're not trying to do anyway should not be the standard for judging our efforts.

I also believe we should have some form (or several forms) that allow the community to give feedback and we evolve a design we can get enough people to play that has a critical mass behind it that it could get adopted and we get some neat byproducts of this, like commercial equipment being made to be able to play (you finally get variant pieces... YIPPIE).

We're not going to get a critical mass behind any game at this site. This site attracts the creative and the curious. This is the hub of creativity in the variant world, not the place where standardization or critical masses are to be found. You want critical mass behind a game? Pick one and promote it heavily. You're not going to get a critical mass here among the innovators. You're only going to get it among people who are not sufficiently interested in making their own games or in trying out multiple games. Trying to get it here is like herding cats.

Also, I already have variant pieces, simply because some capitalists took an interest in some variants and produced commercial sets.

In a nutshell, can we have both what you want (each game as a work of art unto itself) and also something we can evolve as a community, that can borrow from all over?

First of all, I have not advocated that we regard games as works of art. On thinking about the matter, I regard the invention of Chess variants to be a craft more than an art. The difference is that art exists simply as a work of beauty or expression of some kind, whereas craft serves a practical purpose. Aesthetic sensibilities may guide the making of a craft, but the more important consideration in craftsmanship is whether what is being made will serve its function properly. For example, architecture is primarily a craft. If an architect designs a house to be lovely to behold but fails to make it safe and livable, he has failed. The beauty of the house is secondary to the practical function of living in it. Game invention is a craft, because the beauty of a game has to take second place to the playability of a game. When I create a game, it is not about expressing myself or creating something of lasting beauty. It is mainly about designing something people will enjoy playing, and sometimes this means playtesting and focusing on details that don't make a difference to the beauty of a game.

Second, what you want reminds me of what Peter Keating did with Howard Roark's blueprints in Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead. After promising that he would not change them, he lets his second-hander colleagues make all kinds of changes to them. Howard Roark takes such offense at this that he blows up the building made from these plans. The offense was that they denigrated the integrity of his vision. Although architecture is not pure art, it doesn't mean that an architect cannot be inspired by some kind of artistic vision. As long as his craftsmanship remains up to snuff, he can be a better architect by combining artistry and craftsmanship together. The same is true of creating Chess variants. No committee or community is going to have the vision of a true craftsman and artist. Whatever they make is likely to end up a hodgepodge of ideas without rhyme or reason, sort of like any bill that gets passed in congress.

Though I started the thread, I have not read this conversation much (yet). It
is welcome but a NextChess5 (there can be 64 nextchess threads if
necesssary) may have to return to basics. Namely, the core CVs of
NextChess3. They are Modern, Mastodon, Eurasian, Templar, Centennial,
Unicorn Great, Switching, Seirawan, Black Ghost, Big Board, Courier de la
Dama, Eight Stone, Wildebeest, Fantasy Grand, Venator, Great Shatranj,
King's Court, Three-Player, Schoolbook, Melee, Sissa. As art or craft,
each is crying out to be played. It is impossible to have played widely a
hundred CVs or a million CVs. That's why these Next Chess threads.
Anything can be made up, more than atoms in the universe. For proof of
that, see ''91.5 Trillion...'' or half the Betza articles, where he
tapers off into infinity. I think each variantist should be dis-allowed
from advocating his own games. I think each variantist should be prohibited
from playing his own game. Until NextChess has done its job. The work for
mankind and the future of reason, forming the basis of both art and
science. It is a hard thing, but your CV in general must be taken away from
you. You (in general) do not deserve what you created. As Nietzsche said:
''This then is the hardest of all, to close the open hand out of love...''

Hello Fergus.  I think it would be useful to clarify a bit of what I was
speaking about here:
1. My use of 'art' is meant to be in contrast to that of 'science'.  In
one sense 'art' and 'craft' were put next to each other.  You can take
what I said to speak about something created that can be admired for its
quality and stand alone.
2. While I can understand and appreciate designer's works standing alone,
as a fine piece of work, I am also of the belief games are designed to be
played, and not just put in some museum somewhere.  Because of this, I
believe there needs to be a dialog between the designer and players of
games, to make sure what comes about is played.  We can continue to follow
the old path of 'monkeys at the typewriter' spitting out more and more
works, and hope one sticks, with each game is its own and end of
discussion.  But I believe for a game to grow, it needs a community of
players behind it.  To this end, the community needs to feel as they are
part owners over the game, and have input.  You can see examples of this
involvement in 'crowdsourcing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing

Part of the reason for FIDE Chess being what it is, is that a community
adopted the game, and how it developed wasn't from one person, but a
community that played it and codified the rules.  I know designers wish
they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of
reverence FIDE Chess has.  But I believe, unless a community feels the game
is their game, it isn't going to happen.
3. As for the effectiveness of the stand-alone game method, I can refer to
what you wrote in the original NextChess thread goes into the problems we
face with the current approach:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess
    As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working? 

Let me answer this...:
Equipment Availability
Good. 

My comment: Availability I would rate actually as poor.  One can
theoretically make their own equipment for everything.  However, that
doesn't mean that equipment is readily available.  Most games are given as
gifts to other people. If giving gifts is the criterion of availability,
how exactly can we rate equipment availability as good?  Take the example
of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists.  They list chess variants, and
tell people about Grand Chess.  People get interested.  Ok, now where do
they get the board and pieces?  They don't.  They have to make them.

Player Interest
Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure
it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has
the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games
everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world,
it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to
impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the
promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some
kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.
4. We have some practical reasons to get NextChess to function.  We need to
have it so that we can make it commercially viable to supply equipment for.
 Despite people saying 'Let's just be digital' such doesn't have the
same degree of accessibility through physical equipment to have things take
off.  And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at
all.  Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North
America?  Sorry, not easily doable.

Rich Hutnik wrote:

Take the example of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists. They list chess variants, and tell people about Grand Chess. People get interested. Ok, now where do they get the board and pieces? They don't. They have to make them.

And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at all. Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North America? Sorry, not easily doable.

Grand Chess sets sell for $39.00. See

http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/get/game-material

My own collection of Chess variant sets includes two Gothic Chess sets, an Omega Chess set, two Cambaluc Chinese Chess sets, a set of traditional Chinese Chess pieces, and a set of traditional Korean Chess pieces. Although the Cambaluc sets are not in production, the other sets are available for purchase. Besides what I have, there are other sets you can buy, such as traditional Shogi pieces, the figurine bi-colored Eurasia-Chess pieces, and a very expensive Courier Chess set. I'm sure there are others I haven't mentioned here.

Rich Hutnik wrote:

I know designers wish they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of reverence FIDE Chess has. But I believe, unless a community feels the game is their game, it isn't going to happen.

Who cares if it is ever going to happen? I don't. I have never created a Chess variant with the hope or expectation of gaining anything like the popularity or reverence for my game that FIDE Chess enjoys. You just don't get it, Rich. I create games for myself. If other people enjoy my games, that's fine, and I appreciate the opportunity this give me to play them against other people. But I do not create games for the sake of pleasing or impressing people. The satisfaction I get from creating games is in the intrinsic enjoyment of the creative process and in the sense of self-satisfaction I get from contemplating what I have done and regarding it as good. The appreciation others have expressed for my games is a small bonus, but it has never been why I create games.

To me,a piece, or a chess variant, is just like a music note, a thing tha
only the masters can devise, but, after that, everyone can use it. Imagine
if only Da Vinci could use the 3d perspective.... He was the first one to
notice this relation. If you think a chessvariant as a closed work,
where's the progress?

Whe are a community to share, not to get at home plotting and scheming...
Fearing tha the guy next door can steal your new cool idea!

Hugs.

Claudio,

Sharing of ideas already happens. Rich imagines that games are dead-ends unless they are community projects. To give an example of how ideas are already being shared, my favorite of my games, Kamikaze Mortal Shogi, was a collaboration between me and Roberto Lavieri, who was inspired by my Mortal Chessgi game with the idea for a Mortal Shogi game. Mortal Chessgi was in turn inspired by Karl Scherer's Hydra Chess as well as my own Demotion Chessgi, a game I've since neglected, though it has significance for leading me to the creation of something better. Demotion Chessgi was inspired by Chessgi, which was inspired by Shogi. This is only one example. Many of my games borrow from past games, as do many of the games of others. In general, I have found the creative process to work in an evolutionary way, such that new ideas build on old ideas, leading me to improve on my past efforts and make better games. In this way, even games I've since neglected have not been dead-ends.

Here Fergus Duniho reactivated the old thread that had only the one start-up comment.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24211 Duniho's ideas may have evolved from just this comment two weeks ago.
I would not be interested in a tournament, but I imagine the usual 24 will be and eventually add 5 or 10 more. Tournaments just feed the egos of the winner and placer and shower (1,2,3rd). That is, tournaments of more or less random CVs as artwork, the bring your own poisons.

George,

Any competition, whether it is a tournament, a design contest, or an
individual game has the potential to feed the ego of the winner. Chess
variants, by their very nature, foster competition. Since I'm not about to
give up Chess variants for being competitive, I'm not going to give up on
tournaments and design contests for also being competitive. I agree that
tournaments can give winners a sense of accomplishment, but I think it
depends on the individual whether this sense of accomplishment goes to
support a healthy self-esteem or feeds an antagonistic sense of
superiority. The latter is a bad thing. Healthy self-esteem is about
feeling good about yourself and your accomplishments. Unhealthy egocentrism
is about trying to feel better about yourself by comparing yourself with
others, trying to feel good about yourself by feeling that you're better
than others. Which way it goes is a matter of the individual's own
character. I think there is less of this egocentric competitiveness in
Chess variants than in Chess. While the Chess world offers a platform for
proving that you are more a master of the game than others are, the Chess
variants world is more about exploring new territory, and it allows more
room for focusing on the fun of playing games than on the need to win. As I
recall my time in high school Chess club, it was the intense sense of
competition that took much of the fun out of it for me. I didn't enjoy
tournaments, some of the members were jerks, and I eventually quit and just
played Chess with an electronic chess set from radio shack. My experience
with Chess variants has been much better. Although games are competitive by
their nature, there has been much less of a competitive atmosphere
surrounding Chess variants. It has been primarily about having fun and
trying new things. So I am not concerned that having another tournament
here will make things too competitive and unduly feed the egos of the
winners.